Literature DB >> 9681904

The physician-patient encounter: the physician as a perfect agent for the patient versus the informed treatment decision-making model.

A Gafni1, C Charles, T Whelan.   

Abstract

Assuming a goal of arriving at a treatment decision which is based on the physician's knowledge and the patient's preferences, we discuss the feasibility of implementing two treatment decision-making models: (1) the physician as a perfect agent for the patient, and (2) the informed treatment decision-making models. Both models fall under the rubric of agency models, however, the requirements from the physician and the patient are different. An important distinction between the two models is that in the former the patient delegates authority to her doctor to make medical decisions and thus the challenge is to encourage the physician to find out the patient's preferences. In the latter, the patient retains the authority to make medical decisions and the physician role is that of information transfer. The challenge here is to encourage the physician to transfer the knowledge in a clear and nonbiased way. We argue that the choice of model depends among other things on the ease of implementation (e.g., is it simpler to transfer patient's preferences to doctors or to transfer technical knowledge to patients?). Also the choice of treatment decision-making model is likely to have an impact on the type of incentives or regulations (i.e., contracts) needed to promote the chosen model. We show that in theory both models result in the same outcome. We argue that the approach of transferring information to the patient is easier (but not easy) and, hence, more feasible than transferring each patient's preferences to the physician in each medical encounter. We also argue that because better "technology" exists to transfer medical information to patients and time costs are involved in both tasks (i.e. transferring preferences or information), it is more feasible to design contracts to motivate physicians to transfer information to patients than to design contracts to motivate physicians to find out their patients' utility functions. We illustrate our arguments using a clinical example of the choice of adjuvant chemotherapy versus no adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early stage breast cancer. We also discuss issues relating to the current realities of clinical practice and their potential implications for the way that economists model physician-patient clinical encounters.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9681904     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00091-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  46 in total

1.  How to improve communication between doctors and patients. Learning more about the decision making context is important.

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-06

2.  Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling.

Authors:  G Elwyn; J Gray; A Clarke
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.318

3.  Reducing error, improving safety. Defensive culture of British medicine needs to change.

Authors:  V Barley; G Neale; C Burns-Cox; P Savage; S Machin; A El-Sobky; A Savage
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000 Aug 19-26

Review 4.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

5.  Is mastectomy overused? A call for an expanded research agenda.

Authors:  Paula V Lantz; Judith K Zemencuk; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Evidence based medicine has come a long way.

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Deborah Cook; Brian Haynes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-10-30

7.  Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Tim Whelan; Mary Ann O'Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Can I accurately predict the impact of an illness and its treatment on my future subjective well-being? A complex question that does not have a simple answer.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Factors influencing behavioral intention regarding prostate cancer screening among older African-American men.

Authors:  Marvella E Ford; Sally W Vernon; Suzanne L Havstad; Shirley A Thomas; Shawna D Davis
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.798

10.  Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Indu Lakhani; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.